Not sure I understand (p. 88) [via PaperHive@docloop]

[docloop[bot]]

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Regarding this part:

By having shown that approaches assuming the resultative construction and/or the benefactive construction to be phrasal constructions run into problems, I have also shown that approaches considering all argument structure construc- tions phrasal are problematic. Hence, this book is a contribution to the general debate about argument structure constructions. It shows that phrasal construc- tions (in LFG) are not suited to deal with argument structure. Instead, lexical constructions (lexical rules) are needed. The syntactic combinations are licensed by rather abstract syntactic rules. Nevertheless, phrasal constructions are useful and necessary in those parts of grammars that do not interact with argument structure and valence alternations. An example of such a construction is the N-P-N construction ( student after student ), in which no head can be identified ( Jackendoff 2008 ). So, this book provides support for the position that a mix of the proposals from the two major linguistic schools is needed: we need a rich lex- icon and abstract schemata for combining linguistic objects and we need specific phrasal constructions that contribute their own semantics.

Ash Asudeh wrote:

You seem here to be saying that you only want constructions for things like 'student after student' (things that can generally pre-theoretically be called 'constructions' without much disagreement, in other words, because they have odd syntax), but in Figure 7.7 on page 75 you also introduce the possibility of a 'stored phrasal configuration for English' . What is the status of these things for you in the end? Are they possibly in or necessarily out? (I know that beneath 7.7 you reject them for the case at hand, but it's not clear to me that this means they are necessarily not part of your theory in other ways)

_Link to original comment. About docloop._

[docloop[bot]]

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Stefan Müller wrote:

Well, in many comments you said that you also could assume a lexical approach. The same is true for HPSG into the other direction: we could assume complex phrasal constructions as part of our theories. Richter & Sailer (2009) showed how this can be done for idioms. In the end it is an empirical question and I would like to say that the empirical arguments are in favour for a lexical theory provided we make several basic assumtions that are usually made in theories like LFG, CG, HPSG and CxG. And psycholinguistis are telling us that we store chunks. So, if there is really evidence that we store Kim loves Sandy as a fixed uninterruptable chunk then so be it. But this is probably only the case for some high-frequent phrases from ads or so. The normal "Kim loves Sandy" can be interrupted by adverbs and can be torn appart by topicalization and so on. --- - Richter, Frank & Manfred Sailer. 2009. Phraseological clauses as Constructions in HPSG. In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Göttingen, Germany, 297–317. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://csli-publications. stanford.edu/HPSG/2009/ (25 February, 2018).

_Link to original comment. About docloop._

[docloop[bot]]

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Remi van Trijp wrote:

If you include for a number of more complex items in your inventory, it seems like you're using larger constructions as a way to capture exceptions to how your normally define linguistic information... and that goes against the very heart of what construction grammar is about. The whole idea is to obliterate the lexicon-syntax distinction and to do everything with constructions.

_Link to original comment. About docloop._

[docloop[bot]]

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Stefan Müller wrote:

I do not understand your comment. Wasn't the whole point about CxG that there are different constructions of different sizes? So if we have stored chunks of the Richter/Sailer type, why shouldn't we have others? And Adele also has small-size constructions like morphemes. These are the lexical rules/constructions in HPSG and SBCG. So this seems to be pretty normal. Riehemann (1992, 1997) and Booij (much later) do these things in Construction Morphology. And if you store a fixed phrase that uses several other constructions this seems just normal in CxG and HPSG. I do not see a problem. ---- - Booij, Geert E. 2005. Construction-Dependent Morphology. Lingue e linguaggio 4. 31–46. - Riehemann, Susanne. 1993. Word formation in lexical type hierarchies: A case study of bar-adjectives in German. Also published as SfS-Report-02-93, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, University of Tübingen. Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen MA thesis. - Riehemann, Susanne Z. 1998. Type-based derivational morphology. Journal of Comparative Germanic Lin- guistics 2(1). 49–77.

_Link to original comment. About docloop._

[docloop[bot]]

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Remi van Trijp wrote:

Yes, in CxG everything is a construction, ranging from atomic form-meaning mappings to more complex structures. My comment is: if you do everything with lexical rules, apart from some phrasal idioms, then you seem to be using the power of constructions to go beyond local configurations only as an exception rather than as the rule. The whole idea of CxG is rather that you have one and the same data structure for everything, and that those may freely combine with each other and overlap as long as there are no conflicts. So using just a small number of phrasal constructions for capturing a couple of idioms really seems like a hidden core-periphery distinction.

_Link to original comment. About docloop._

[docloop[bot]]

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Stefan Müller wrote:

Did you just say "a small number of phrasal constructions"? =:-) Who says that it is a small number? We learned from CxG and Jackendoff's work that there are lots and lots of idioms out there. What HPSG uses to model linguistic objects is feature-value pairs. And we have the same data structure for everything. If you have conversion in morphology (play-V -> play-N), you have unary branching structures and hence you have the same kind of (lexical) rules/constructions as HPSG has. I do not see a way around this. If you have bigger stored chunks (as you have to have since this is what psycholinguists are telling us), then you have big chunks (involving several other constructions). You have to have this and everybody else too. You suggested lexical association links in one of your papers. If you assume this you are basically doing some form of Lexicalized TAG. This is fine for me.

_Link to original comment. About docloop._

[docloop[bot]]

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Remi van Trijp wrote:

I am fine with unary branching structures as long as you remain on a single-unit level (I will leave open what one "unit" may be). But in the case of argument structure I just don't see why you would want to do that if you can have the larger pattern (which is great for processing)

_Link to original comment. About docloop._